Karnataka High Court

Smt Vijayalakshmi C R vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 7 August, 2025

                                         -1-
                                                   NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB
                                                   MFA No. 6955 of 2015


             HC-KAR



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

                                      PRESENT
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
                                         AND
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6955 OF 2015 (MV-D)


             BETWEEN:

             1.     SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI C R
                    WIFE OF LATE SRI C.N. RAMAMOHAN,
                    AGE: 63 YEARS,
                    RESIDING AT NO.137, "ASHIRVADA"
                    3RD CROSS, SEVANTIGE ROAD,
                    GARDEN VILLAS, MARUTI NAGAR,
                    NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD,
                    BANGALORE-56.

                    PERMANENT ADDRESS:
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA            C-2, LIC OFFICERS QUARTERS,
KUMARY B K          M.H.ROAD, NEAR TALUK OFFICE,
Location:
HIGH                76, BADAGABETTU,
COURT OF            UDUPI-576101.
KARNATAKA
                                                            ...APPELLANT

             (BY SRI C. SADASHIVA, ADVOCATE)

             AND:

             1.     ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                    BRANCH OFFICE AT GUDIYATTAM,
                    12, KATPADI ROAD, GUDIYATTAM,
                    VELLORE, TAMIL NADU-632602.
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB
                                      MFA No. 6955 of 2015


HC-KAR




2.   SRI A. RANGANATHAN
     AGE: MAJOR,
     NO.18-306, PALAMANER ROAD,
     CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

3.   SRI J. SARAVAN KUMAR
     SON OF JAGANMOHAN,
     AGE: 25 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT NO.1/141/B,
     PILLAIYAAR STREET,
     MULLAMDRAM VILLAGE,
     ARANI TALUK,
     THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT,
     TAMIL NADU.

     AND ALSO AT:

     NO.15-2160,
     VISHNUPRIYA COMPLEX,
     PALAMANER ROAD,
     CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.07.2023, NOTICE TO
 R-2 & R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

      THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5168/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES,   26TH   ACMM,   (SCCH-09),   BENGALURU,    PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                -3-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB
                                        MFA No. 6955 of 2015


HC-KAR




CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
           and
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company.

2. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the

judgment and award dated 02.02.2015 passed in MVC

No.5168 of 2012 on the file of the learned Small Causes

Judge and XXVI ACCM, Bengaluru, whereby, the Tribunal

awarded compensation of Rs.16,90,000/- with interest

@6% per annum from the date of petition till its

realization.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.01.2012 at

about 9.15 p.m. when the deceased Shwetha was

NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB

HC-KAR

returning home on her TVS WEGO bearing Registration No.

KA-53-U-697 near Someshwara Temple, Old Madras Road,

K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, a lorry bearing Registration

No. AP-02-T-7789 came in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed against the two-wheeler as a result of which,

the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. She

was declared dead in the hospital. Hence, the

appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal

seeking compensation. The claimant is the mother of the

deceased Shwetha. The deceased was working as

Accounts Executive in Siemens Limited, Bengaluru and

was getting salary of Rs.50,000/- per month.

5. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record at

Exs.P1 to P18 and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2,

partly allowed the claim petition awarding a total

compensation of Rs.16,90,000/- with interest at the rate

of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its

realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant

NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB

HC-KAR

has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

6. Sri C. Sadashiva, the learned counsel for the

appellant/claimant vehemently contended that the

Tribunal, without properly considering the evidence on

record, wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at

Rs.4,82,800/- per annum. In fact, the monthly income of

the deceased was Rs.50,000/- per month. Further, the

tribunal has wrongly considered the age of the claimant,

who is the mother of the deceased, as 60 years and

wrongly applied the multiplier of 9 for assessing the loss of

dependency. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, the learned

counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company, supports

the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and

submits that, considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded just and

reasonable compensation under each head, which does not

NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB

HC-KAR

call for interference at the hands of this Court, except the

future prospects granted by the tribunal. In fact, as on

the date of the accident, the deceased was under private

employment and therefore, the future prospects applicable

would be 40% in view of the ratio laid down in the case of

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAY SETHI

reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Hence, it has to be

reduced to 40% from 50%. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the

appeal.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

on perusal of the appeal papers including the original

records of the Tribunal, the following point would arise for

our consideration in this appeal:

           Whether       the         quantum      of
           compensation        awarded     by   the

Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?

NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB

HC-KAR

9. In the instant appeal, respondent No.1-Insurance

Company has not disputed the accident in question, the

cause of death of the deceased and the liability to pay

compensation to the claimant.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the Tribunal assessed the income of the

deceased at Rs.4,82,800/- considering the basic salary of

the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month. As per the

material available on record, the deceased was drawing

basic salary of Rs.20,000/-, House Rent Allowance of

Rs.10,000/- and Supplementary Allowance of Rs.13,000/-

per month. So, the deceased Shwetha was drawing salary

of Rs. 43,000/- per month. After deducting the income

tax, her salary was Rs.4,82,800/- per annum. Since the

deceased was in private employment, the future prospects

has to be added to her income at 40% in view of the ratio

laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra).

NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB

HC-KAR

11. The deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of

the accident. Respondent No.1 has not disputed this

aspect. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS. Vs.

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND

ANOTHER reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, the

multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 17.

12. The deceased Shwetha died leaving behind her

mother. Since the deceased died unmarried, the

appropriate deduction towards her personal expenses

would be 50% considering the fact that there was only one

dependent i.e., the mother of the deceased.

13. The Tribunal, placing reliance on the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJESH AND

OTHERS Vs RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in

2013 ACJ 1403, has wrongly considered the future

prospects at 50% considering the age of the mother of the

deceased at 60 years. Since the deceased was working in

NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB

HC-KAR

private company and she was below the age of 40 years,

the claimant is entitled for 40% towards future prospects.

Thus, the loss of dependency is as under:

4,82,800+1,93,120/-(40% future prospects)x17x 50%=22,98,128

14. The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding

fair compensation under the conventional heads. As per

the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED

Vs. NANU RAM AND OTHERS reported in 2018 ACJ

2782 and Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the claimant is

entitled for RS. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium,

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-

towards funeral expenses with 10% interest for every

three years.

15. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the following

compensation:

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB

HC-KAR

1 Loss of dependency Rs. 22,98,128/-

2 Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-

3 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-

4 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-

TOTAL Rs. 23,68,128/-

Less: Compensation awarded Rs. 16,90,000/-

by the Tribunal

ENHANCED Rs. 6,78,128/-

COMPENSATION

16. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is

modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimant

is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 23,68,128/- as

against Rs.16,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the additional

compensation of Rs. 6,78,128/- from the date of filing of

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30861-DB

HC-KAR

the claim petition till the date of its realization. The

claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period

of 110 days in filing this appeal.

iii. Respondent No.1-Insurance Company is directed

to deposit the additional compensation amount with

accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.